Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the trueness and precision of five intraoral scanners (Emerald S, iTero Element 5D, Medit i700, Primescan, and Trios 4) and two indirect digitization techniques for both teeth and soft tissues on fresh mandibular and maxillary cadaver jaws. METHODS: The maxilla and mandible of a fully dentate cadaver were scanned by the ATOS industrial scanner to create a master model. Then, the specimens were scanned eight times by each intraoral scanner (IOS). In addition, 8 polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions were made and digitized with a Medit T710 desktop scanner. Stone models were then poured and again scanned with the desktop scanner. All IOS, PVS, and stone models were compared to the master model to calculate the mean absolute surface deviation for mandibular teeth, maxillary teeth, and palate. RESULTS: For mandibular teeth, the PVS trueness was only significantly better than the Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.05). In maxillary teeth, the PVS trueness was significantly better than all IOSs (p < 0.05-0.001); the stone trueness was significantly better than Emerald S (p < 0.01), Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.01). In the palate, PVS and stone trueness were significantly lower than the iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < p < 0.01). Stone trueness was significantly lower than the Medit i700 (p < 0.05). The precision in the palate was significantly lower for PVS and stone than for Emerald S (p < 0.01, p < 0.05), iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01, p < 0.01), Primescan (p < 0.001, p < 0.001), and Trios 4 (p < 0.001, p < 0.01). Significant differences in trueness between the IOSs were observed only in the mandibular teeth. The Medit i700 performed worse than Emerald S (p < 0.01) and iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01). For mandibular teeth, the Medit i700 was significantly more precise than Primescan (p < 0.01) and the Emerald S (p < 0.05). The Trios 4 was significantly less precise than Emerald S (p < 0.05). The precision of Medit i700 was significantly worse than iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) for maxillary teeth, as well as the Primescan (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < 0.05) for the palate. CONCLUSIONS: In general, indirectly digitized models from PVS impressions had higher trueness than IOS for maxillary teeth; precision between the two methods was similar. IOS was more accurate for palatal tissues. The differences in trueness and precision for mandibular teeth between the various techniques were negligible. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: All investigated IOSs and indirect digitization could be used for complete arch scanning in mandibular and maxillary dentate arches. However, direct optical digitization is preferable for the palate due to the low accuracy of physical impression techniques for soft tissues.

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. PURPOSE: The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05). RESULTS: After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 µm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 µm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 µm versus 54 ±3.1 µm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 µm versus 57 ±3.6 µm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 µm), i500 (57 ±3.6 µm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 µm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 µm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 µm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 µm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 µm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 µm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 µm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 µm, P=.141) for the experienced operators. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.

Evaluation of the accuracy of multiple digital impression systems on a fully edentulous maxilla.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the accuracy performance of five different intraoral scanning systems for a full-arch scan on an edentulous cadaver maxilla. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Five digital intraoral impression systems were used to scan a fully edentulous cadaver maxilla. A master scan obtained with an ATOS Capsule industrial grade scanner provided the point of comparison. Experimental scans were compared to the master scan using a metrology software that allows images to be overlayed on one another and deviations interpreted. Once aligned, three comparisons were made between the experimental scans and the reference: the entire maxilla, the ridge area only, and the palate area only. RESULTS: Trueness deviations between the experimental scans and the master digital model were up to 0.1 mm in the 75th percentile. For the whole maxilla, only the Medit scanner had statistically significantly inferior trueness compared to other scanners. When only the palate was considered, Medit was significantly different from Element (P = .0025) and Trios 4 (P = .0040), with no differences found between other scanners. For the ridge region the results replicate the trend observed for the whole maxilla. In regard to precision, differences were found only in the whole maxilla and the ridge area. In both areas, only Medit's precision was significantly different compared to other scanners, with the exception of Element. However, Element performance was similar to all other scanners. CONCLUSION: Most intraoral scanners exhibited similar performance. Although several statistically significant differences were identified, the clinical impact of these variances is probably not meaningful. (Quintessence Int 2021;52:488-495; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b1244373).

The effect of software updates on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of the study was to determine the effects of software updates on the trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained with a variety of intraoral scanner (IOS) systems. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Seven IOS systems were investigated. Each system was tested using two versions of software, with the second version being the latest at the time of conducting the study. Scans were performed on a custom mandibular typodont model with natural teeth that were either unrestored or restored with amalgam, composite, lithium disilicate, zirconia, and gold. Eight scans were obtained for each software version on any of the tested IOS systems. Experimental IOS scans were compared against an industry-standard master scan of the typodont obtained with an ATOS Capsule scanner proven to have a trueness of 3 µm and a precision of 2 µm. Isolation of each substrate material on the digital experimental and master scans was achieved using the Geomagic metrology software for subsequent analysis of the substrate influence on accuracy. A generalized linear mixed model was used to determine the influence of the software version on the trueness and precision of the impression scan. RESULTS: For some IOS systems, scans made with older software versions differ in accuracy compared with those obtained with the most recent software versions. Trueness was improved for most scanners following the software update, although the Element2 IOS performance deteriorated. Software updates had lesser effects on precision and showed variable trends among different systems. Software updates also influence different substrate materials scans' accuracy, although the results show variability among IOS systems. When comparisons were done among IOS systems updated with the latest software version, best performers for complete arch trueness were the Emerald S, Trios 3, and Primescan systems. CONCLUSION: Software updates have a statistically significant effect on the trueness and precision of different IOS systems. These updates can have both positive and negative effects on scan accuracy, although it appears that these variations are within the clinical acceptability levels.

Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Complete-arch digital scans are becoming popular as digital dentistry is adopted for expanded clinical situations such as complete-arch prostheses, removable prostheses, extensive implant-supported treatment, and orthodontic aligners. Whether the scan pattern technique affects the trueness and precision of complete-arch scans and whether differences in accuracy exist among different scanners remain unclear. Furthermore, each manufacturer recommends a different scan pattern, but evidence of the superiority of the manufacturer's recommended pattern is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine whether the scan pattern affects the trueness, precision, and speed of complete-arch digital scans performed by using 4 different digital scanning systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A custom model used as the reference standard was fabricated with teeth having the same refractive index as dentin and enamel to simulate the natural dentition. The scan of the custom typodont was obtained by using an ATOS III Triple Scan 3D optical scanner. This study evaluated the CEREC Omnicam, Planmeca Emerald, Align iTero Element, and 3Shape TRIOS 3. Experimental scans were obtained from each of the 4 different digital scanning systems by using 4 unique scan patterns by experienced clinicians. Four experimental scans were acquired from each of the scanners by using 4 distinct scan patterns for a total of 16 scans for each scanner. Scan patterns 1 to 4 were based on the operator manuals for each different scanner. The scan time was recorded for each scan. All experimental scans were converted to standard tessellation language (STL) format, and a comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. RESULTS: For trueness, the scanner (P<.001), scan pattern (P=.001), and their interaction (P<.001) were found to be significant. Overall, scan pattern 2 showed the highest average trueness and precision. Likewise, for overall scan pattern precision, the scanner, scan pattern, and their interaction were found to be significant (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Scan pattern affected trueness and precision for some scanners, but not for others. Differences exist in the complete-arch scan speed, trueness, and precision of individual scanners. Scan pattern can play an important role in the success of digital scanning.

The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners.

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study compares the newest generation of intraoral scanners to their older counterparts, and tests whether material substrates affect the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A custom model, used as the reference standard, was fabricated with teeth composed of different dental materials. The reference standard scan was obtained using a three-dimensional (3D) optical scanner, the ATOS III. Experimental scans were obtained using eight different IOS, operated by experienced clinicians, using the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy. A comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. RESULTS: For all scanners tested, except Trios3, the substrate does influence the trueness and precision of the scan. Furthermore, differences exist when comparing the same substrate across different scanners with some of the latest generation scanners clearly leaping ahead of the older generation regarding both trueness and precision. CONCLUSIONS: Substrate type affects the trueness and precision of a scan. Active Triangulation scanners are more sensitive to substrate differences than their parallel confocal counterparts. Some scanners scan certain substrates better, but in general the new generation of scanners outperforms the old, across all substrates. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The substrates being scanned play an import role in the trueness and precision of the 3D model. The new generation of scanners is remarkably accurate across all substrates and for complete-arch scanning.

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.

OBJECTIVES: An impression accuracy study using a cadaver maxilla was performed using both prepared and intact teeth as well as palatal tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three crown preparations were performed on a cadaver maxilla. Seven different digital impression systems along with polyvinylsiloxane impressions were used to create digital models of the maxilla. Three-dimensional (3D) files of the experimental models were compared to a master model. The 3D files were overlaid and analyzed using a comparison software to create color coded figures that were measured for deviations between the master and experimental models. RESULTS: For scanning tooth structure, only the Planscan was significantly less accurate than the rest of impression techniques. No significant differences in accuracy were found between models created using digital impressions and those created from traditional vinyl polysiloxane impressions with cross arch deviations ranging from 18 to 39 µm for each. CONCLUSIONS: Impressions taken using all digital impression systems, save for the Planscan, were able to accurately replicate the tissues of a complete arch human maxilla. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Studies examining accuracy of digital impression systems have generally been performed on materials other than dental tissues. Optically, materials such as plastic and metal have properties different from enamel and dentin. This study evaluates accuracy of digital impression systems on human dentin, enamel, and soft tissues.

Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine how the accuracy of digital impressions was affected by four common dental substrates using seven prevalent IOS systems to scan the complete arch of a human maxilla. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: The Department of Oral Rehabilitation at the Medical University of South Carolina. A single cadaver maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven digital intraoral impression systems were used to scan a freshly harvested human maxilla. The maxilla contained several teeth restored with amalgam and composite, as well as unrestored teeth characterized by enamel. Also, three teeth were prepared for full coverage restorations to expose natural dentin. An industrial grade metrology software program that allowed 3D overlay and dimensional computation compared deviations of the complete arch and its substrates on the test model from the reference model. RESULTS: Substrates were significantly different from each other when considering scan data as a whole, as well as when comparing IOS devices individually. Only PlanScan failed to reveal trueness differences between the different substrates, while only Emerald revealed precision differences between the substrates. CONCLUSIONS: Substrate type does impact the overall accuracy of intraoral scans with dentin being the most accurate and enamel being the least accurate. The four substrates scanned impacted the trueness of all IOS devices.

Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians have been slow to adopt digital impression technologies due possibly to perceived technique sensitivities involved in data acquisition. This research has two aims: determine whether scan pattern and sequence affects the accuracy of the three-dimensional (3D) model created from this digital impression and to compare the 5 imaging systems with regards to their scanning accuracy for sextant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six digital intraoral impression systems were used to scan a typodont sextant with optical properties similar to natural teeth. The impressions were taken using five different scan patterns and the resulting digital models were overlayed on a master digital model to determine the accuracy of each scanner performing each scan pattern. Furthermore, regardless of scan pattern, each digital impression system was evaluated for accuracy to the other systems in this same manner. RESULTS: No differences of significance were noted in the accuracy of 3D models created using six distinct scan patterns with one exception involving the CEREC Omnicam. Planmeca Planscan was determined to be the truest scanner while 3Shape Trios was determined to be the most precise for sextant impression making. CONCLUSIONS: Scan pattern does not significantly affect the accuracy of the resulting digital model for sextant scanning. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Companies who make digital impression systems often recommend a scan pattern specific for their system. However, every clinical scanning scenario is different and may require a different approach. Knowing how important scan pattern is with regards to accuracy would be helpful for guiding a growing number of practitioners who are utilizing this technology.

Anatomic Customization of Root-Analog Dental Implants With Cone-Beam CT and CAD/CAM Fabrication: A Cadaver-Based Pilot Evaluation.

Existing root-analog dental implant systems have no standardized protocols regarding retentive design, surface manipulation, or prosthetic attachment design relative to the site's unique anatomy. Historically, existing systems made those design choices arbitrarily. For this report, strategies were developed that deliberately reference the adjacent anatomy, implant and restorable path of draw, and bone density for implant and retentive design. For proof of concept, dentate arches from human cadavers were scanned using cone-beam computed tomography and then digitally modeled. Teeth of interest were virtually extracted and manipulated via computer-aided design to generate root-analog implants from zirconium. We created a stepwise protocol for analyzing and developing the implant sites, implant design and retention, and prosthetic emergence and connection all from the pre-op cone-beam data. Root-analog implants were placed at the time of extraction and examined radiographically and mechanically concerning ideal fit and stability. This study provides proof of concept that retentive root-analog implants can be produced from cone-beam data while improving fit, retention, safety, esthetics, and restorability when compared to the existing protocols. These advancements may provide the critical steps necessary for clinical relevance and success of immediately placed root-analog implants. Additional studies are necessary to validate the model prior to clinical trial.

A novel technique for reference point generation to aid in intraoral scan alignment.

OBJECTIVE: When using a completely digital workflow on larger prosthetic cases it is often difficult to communicate to the laboratory or chairside Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided Manufacturing system the provisional prosthetic information. The problem arises when common hard tissue data points are limited or non-existent such as in complete arch cases in which the 3D model of the complete arch provisional restorations must be aligned perfectly with the 3D model of the complete arch preparations. In these instances, soft tissue is not enough to ensure an accurate automatic or manual alignment due to a lack of well-defined reference points. A new technique is proposed for the proper digital alignment of the 3D virtual model of the provisional prosthetic to the 3D virtual model of the prepared teeth in cases where common and coincident hard tissue data points are limited. Clinical considerations: A technique is described in which fiducial composite resin dots are temporarily placed on the intraoral keratinized tissue in strategic locations prior to final impressions. These fiducial dots provide coincident and clear 3D data points that when scanned into a digital impression allow superimposition of the 3D models. CONCLUSIONS: Composite resin dots on keratinized tissue were successful at allowing accurate merging of provisional restoration and post-preparation 3D models for the purpose of using the provisional restorations as a guide for final CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Composite resin dots placed temporarily on attached tissue were successful at allowing accurate merging of the provisional restoration 3D models to the preparation 3D models for the purposes of using the provisional restorations as a guide for final restoration design and manufacturing. In this case, they allowed precise superimposition of the 3D models made in the absence of any other hard tissue reference points, resulting in the fabrication of ideal final restorations.

Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: As digital impressions become more common and more digital impression systems are released onto the market, it is essential to systematically and objectively evaluate their accuracy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the trueness and precision of 6 intraoral scanners and 1 laboratory scanner in both sextant and complete-arch scenarios. Furthermore, time of scanning was evaluated and correlated with trueness and precision. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A custom complete-arch model was fabricated with a refractive index similar to that of tooth structure. Seven digital impression systems were used to scan the custom model for both posterior sextant and complete arch scenarios. Analysis was performed using 3-dimensional metrology software to measure discrepancies between the master model and experimental casts. RESULTS: Of the intraoral scanners, the Planscan was found to have the best trueness and precision while the 3Shape Trios was found to have the poorest for sextant scanning (P<.001). The order of trueness for complete arch scanning was as follows: 3Shape D800 >iTero >3Shape TRIOS 3 >Carestream 3500 >Planscan >CEREC Omnicam >CEREC Bluecam. The order of precision for complete-arch scanning was as follows: CS3500 >iTero >3Shape D800 >3Shape TRIOS 3 >CEREC Omnicam >Planscan >CEREC Bluecam. For the secondary outcome evaluating the effect time has on trueness and precision, the complete- arch scan time was highly correlated with both trueness (r=0.771) and precision (r=0.771). CONCLUSIONS: For sextant scanning, the Planscan was found to be the most precise and true scanner. For complete-arch scanning, the 3Shape Trios was found to have the best balance of speed and accuracy.